- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@Rational.Com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:29:57 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com] I think the simplest solution is to say that the server answers the property values in a Loop Detected propstat. This is probably simpler for the server anyway (not having to strip out values because it is a loop detected status). If the server is going to generate a "Duplicate Detected" status, I don't think it would be any problem for it to stuff a DAV:urn in there instead of the properties list. If the client cares what those properties are, it can use the DAV:urn value to find them in the PROPFIND result body. I think that it is important that binding not introduce unnecessary duplication of property values in PROPFIND responses. A note in the spec can point out that if clients want to reconstruct the graph they can deep propfind the dav:urn. Yes, but that doesn't help them avoid having to parse all those redundant property entries in the PROPFIND response. I don't think it is a good idea to return a property the client didn't ask for. I agree that we shouldn't force a server to return DAV:urn for normal status responses, but I think it reasonable to require the DAV:urn appear for the "Duplicate Detected" status responses. Cheers, Geoff "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox. To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, com> w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sent by: cc: w3c-dist-auth-requ Subject: RE: Loop Detected est@w3.org 16-03-00 09:35 AM We can make it that the property values get returned for the 506 resource, but as you say that will not in general be helpful to the client in reconstructing the graph. It would just be a matter of luck if the properties requested allowed you to identify the resource bound to the href. As you say, the only property that allows this is DAV:urn. So it's not just a matter of changing the example to one where DAV:urn was requested. I know you will hate this suggestion, but we could have servers always return DAV:urn, whether it was requested or not, for all the resources if there is a 506 anywhere in the response. Or we could add a note suggesting to clients that if they want to reconstruct the graph, they should submit another PROPFIND Depth: infinity to the same resource, requesting DAV:urn. -----Original Message----- From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:29 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: RE: Loop Detected I agree with Tim. Furthermore, I would suggest that the example use the DAV:urn property (aka DAV:resource-id), since that illustrates the value of the DAV:urn property (the DAV:display-name is not a reliable way of identifying a resource). Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:29 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Loop Detected The example given in section 12.1 of draft-ietf-webdav-binding-protocol-02 of a PROPFIND depth infinity in the presence of a loop implies that the propstat for the loop detected resource only contains the property names and not their values (again). Although I can understand the point of this in the majority of cases, it does prevent the client from reconstructing the graph of resources since they cannot determine the destination of the binding. If the properties were returned the client could PROPFIND depth infinity on the resource identifier and reconstruct the graph. Tim
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2000 11:30:49 UTC